United States v. Robert Dinkins
688 F. App'x 408
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dinkins, a convicted felon, was stopped after failing to obey traffic signs on a scooter; a gun fell from his waistband when officers assisted him after a crash.
- Officers determined Dinkins was a felon and arrested him for resisting arrest and unlawful possession of a firearm.
- Dinkins formed a neighborhood nonprofit (NEAAC) that he said provided community security; he testified he retrieved the gun from an alley after learning it had been stolen from an NEAAC employee.
- At bench trial Dinkins asserted a justification/self-defense claim: he feared the gun could be used to harm him or community members and believed retrieval and possession were necessary to prevent harm.
- The district court rejected the justification defense, finding Dinkins could have reported the gun or had the owner retrieve it; it convicted him and imposed the 180-month mandatory minimum sentence and two years’ supervised release.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether Dinkins presented sufficient evidence to meet the four-element justification test and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dinkins established a legal justification defense to § 922(g) possession | Dinkins: possessed gun to prevent imminent harm to himself and community after learning gun was stolen; no reasonable alternative | Government: Dinkins did not face a specific, imminent threat and had alternatives (reporting or owner retrieval) | Court: Rejected defense; Dinkins failed to show a real, specific, imminent threat |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. El–Alamin, 574 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2009) (outlined justification-defense framework discussed in the circuit)
- United States v. Bonilla–Siciliano, 643 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2011) (articulated the four-element test for a justification defense)
- United States v. Green, 835 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2016) (evidentiary foundation required to submit affirmative defense to a jury)
- United States v. Poe, 442 F.3d 1101 (8th Cir. 2006) (same—defense must permit reasonable conclusion supporting defendant)
- United States v. Hudson, 414 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2005) (explained requirement of a real and specific threat for justification)
- United States v. Kabat, 797 F.2d 580 (8th Cir. 1986) (court need not submit meritless defenses to a jury)
- United States v. Perrin, 45 F.3d 869 (4th Cir. 1995) (requirement that a real and specific threat exist at time of possession)